America's Next Top Information Professional

Yesterday was the second annual symposium of the UBC chapter of the Association of Canadian Archivists. This year’s theme was Preserving the Memory of the World and featured folks from a variety of institutions all over the world. I enjoyed hearing about UNESCO initiatives the World Digital Library and the Memory of the World Programme, as well as a presentation about the MotW Jikji prize winner, the National Archives of Malaysia. Issues of translation — both linguistic and cultural — and recordkeeping and heritage initiatives in the developing world kept coming up. In Brian Thurgood’s talk about international standards, he noted that a lot of interest in recordkeeping standards has been coming from developing nations. Malaysian national archivist Dato Sidek, when asked about his optimism in a famously complaining profession, simply stated that you have to stay positive in the archives. Things are gonna be bad, so you just have to figure out the best way to make things work.

Social media came up repeatedly throughout the day. Johanna Smith’s presentation on recordkeeping in social networking environments focused on Library and Archives Canada’s initiatives looking at social media in government. It struck me that a lot still comes back to John MacDonald’s Wild Frontier: as long as recordkeeping occurs on the desktop — or the BlackBerry or the mobile phone — archivists are always going to be chasing down records from many steps behind. Babek Hamidizeh mentioned that the World Digital Library has some focus on creating formats available to mobile devices, because in many parts of the world, that is simply the way that people get online. What seems like a gimmick in Canada may be a necessity in other places.

The most provocative speaker of the day was George Blood from the Safe Sound Archive, whose talk had a last-minute change in its title to “METADATA: Gallactic Domination is Just the Beginning.” I’ve spent part of the last week sweating over the data dictionary for the digital library I’m working on, so it was very gratifying to hear Blood ask some hard questions about resource description. Like: how much metadata is enough? (He joked that the only answers are: “I don’t know!” or “More!”) Is there such a thing as too much metadata? What about if the metadata is bigger than the object being described? (This reminded me of Umberto Eco’s essay about “On the impossibility of drawing a map of the empire on a scale of 1 to 1” in How to Travel with a Salmon.) Blood pointed out that we don’t really know how much it helps users to add more metadata. One recurring joke all day was that standards are like toothbrushes: everyone agrees they’re important, but no one wants to use someone else’s. Blood pointed out that even when metadata standards get used, they are rarely applied consistently: what happens when an institution uses a field in a different way, or adds their own elements? We really don’t know. He drove this home by noting that, for a field that professes to avoid proprietary solutions, we use metadata in a generally incompatible way.

I had to duck out before the last few speakers, but it was a great event. Props to the ACA student chapter, faculty, and speakers who made it happen. I can’t wait to see what they come up with for next year.

My post yesterday mentioned my love for my Google Reader, but I didn’t mention that I have been avoiding a particular folder in my Reader for the last two weeks or so. I haven’t been ready to read through all my Books feeds just because I know there will be a bucketload of postings in response to the passing of J.D. Salinger. I’ll admit: I was one of those kids who loved Catcher in the Rye. It was my favorite book for a long time after I first read it, in seventh grade. I used to read it at least once a year, although it has been at least five since I last picked it up. (More recently, I also love Frank Portman’s book King Dork, which laments Catcher’s role in the development of angsty, pretentious teenagers.)

I still have a lot of feelings and thoughts to sort out about Salinger, and I think I’ll probably pick up Catcher again sometime soon. However, his passing has raised some interest in certain archival issues. This brief article from the New York Times article has the provocative teaser “J.D. Salinger’s death could be archivist’s trove” but it at least raises some important questions. Salinger was famously private and effectively squelched attempts at biography, including a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. (This hinged on the “fair use” of Salinger’s unpublished letters by biographer Ian Hamilton. Quick note being: the copyright of correspondence belongs to the writer, even if the ownership of the physical object belongs to the receiver.) The NYT piece speaks with “veteran archivist” Stephen Ennis from Emory University about the possibility that Salinger’s personal papers will appear.

I groaned a few times while reading this article, because it certainly reinforces some misconceptions:

a) Archivists are vultures, waiting to swoop in and take records wherever we can. This always creeps me out, although perhaps it is sort of true in the cutthroat world of literary papers. All your fonds are belong to us!

b) Archivists = librarians. To quote the article, Archivists don’t usually enjoy public acclaim, but they are indispensable to anyone who delves into the lives of the great, the near-great and the not-so-great. Librarians “know how to keep the goods,” said Nancy Milford, the discussion’s moderator. Sigh. Another lost opportunity for distinguishing between two intertwined but separate professions.

c) Digital is forever.While it is true that many writers have purposefully destroyed their paper documents, it is completely misleading to imply that email is a more permanent medium. You don’t have to burn email to get rid of it. I would love to see more media representation of the contradictions of digital preservation, the complexity of how fragile digital objects are, even while they are easily replicated and distributed. Is that so much to ask?

Nonetheless, it’s always good to see archives mentioned in a major publication, especially associated with a famous person. It would be delightful if a collection of Salinger’s records appeared. Let’s hope they end up in a public institution, though, rather than getting snatched up by a private collector.

As a related note, I’ve been meaning to pick up Laura Millar’s new book, The Story Behind the Book: Preserving Author’s and Publisher’s Archives. Has anyone checked it out yet?

In LIBR 559M, we’ve had some interesting discussions about the  “archiving” of web materials, particularly things like Tweets. Dean pointed us to a thought-provoking piece in the Journal of the Society of Archivists, an exploration of the role of the National Archives in the 21st century. It raises some interesting points, but I was taken aback by this statement: “Jenkinson described archives in terms defined only by their content, not their purpose.” Am I misunderstanding this? Jenkinson defined as the natural residue of some activity: that is, you don’t make a record just in order to make a record. Which means he cared about the purpose of the record (the activity that created it) rather than the content (whatever information was in it).

Anyway, I bring this up, because like many in the ‘chival community, I cringe a bit at the use of the word “archiving” as a verb. The application of this term to just any old data also obscures the key fact that not everything that you archive is archival. That is, not every bit of information is a record, and not all of those records are bound for the archives anyway. I stick with Jenkinson on this one: a record is a document that was created or received and kept in the process of doing business.

That being said, in a way, the use of “archiving” is a flattering reminder of the importance of the work we do to preserve materials for future access. And, it’s important to admit that plenty of archives include non-record materials in their holdings. Realia, books, pamphlets, newspapers: all these things end up in archives. Why? Because they inform our identity and memory, maybe they

In this same issue of the Journal, there’s a lovely presidential address by Victor Gray titled ” ‘Who’s that Knocking on Our Door?’: Archives, Outreach and Community.” The UK has made some amazing initiatives in community archives which seek to empower communities to collect and preserve their own histories. These may or may not be records in the Jenkinsonian sense, the communities may keep the archives permanently, pass them along to a public institution, or simply disband the collection after time. Their definition of community archives is fascinating:

Broadly speaking, people think of projects as community archives either because:

1. The subject-matter of the collection is a community of people. The classic example is a group of people who live in the same location, but there are ‘communities of interest’ as well, such as people who worked in a certain profession.
2. The process of creating the collection has involved the community. Typically, this means that volunteers have played a key role, sometimes alongside professional archivists.

The point of these initiatives is not to force the public to swallow archival theory, but simply to celebrate and support community identity and memory. And, in a roundabout way, this is the sense in which I hope we find a way to “archive” our Tweets. We don’t need to keep them because they are records, but because they help inform our understanding of our community and our time.

For the fantastic course ARST 575B last spring, we took a field trip up to the SFU Archives and Records Management Department. The archivists there gave us an in-depth look into the impact of privacy and freedom of information legislation in a university records and archives environment. Among the most interesting examples they gave was this Social Networking Key Messages document created to guide students and staff in using social networking sites for university purposes. Ian Forsyth, University Archivist and Coordinator of Information and Privacy, explained that the use of sites like Facebook in classes or for other university business raised some concerns around the protection of student and staff personal information. The Archives and RM Department does a lot of outreach on campus, including acting as a resource for privacy and FOI concerns. 

In the context of LIBR 559M, this document should raise questions for other institutions, including libraries, which choose to use social networking tools. I sent Ian a few questions about the process of developing these key messages. In addition to being University Archivist and Coordinator of Information and Privacy for SFU, he is currently chair of the Canadian Council of Archives. His answers are below.

1. What (or who) instigated the development of these key messages?

Facebook first became an issue at SFU in August 2007 when a professor asked our advice about using Facebook for a course.  He wanted students to download their course enrollment information from the University’s Student Information System to share it via Facebook.  We subsequently received a number of other requests for advice from various units in Student Services about using Facebook as an outreach tool for their programs (e.g., posting photographs of student volunteers and student events).  As a result, a Facebook ad hoc working group was formed in late Fall 2007 and we developed the key messages/guideline document, which have been in effect since April 2008.

2. Who was involved in the process? What was the role of the Archives and RM Department?

The working group membership included our office, VP Legal Affairs, IT Services, Library, Learning and Instructional Development Centre, Work Integrated Learning Centre, Student Services, HR and Human Rights.  The Archives’ role was to provide expert opinion and advice on how the provisions of the B.C. FIPPA applied in the circumstances of university employees and departments wishing to use Facebook as part of their program activities.

3. What has the response been from students, faculty, or other departments on campus?

There has been little response.  Although we’ve had requests for advice from University faculty and staff about using Facebook we have never received a student or employee privacy complaint about it.

4. Do you have recommendations for other organizations setting up guidelines for the use of social media tools? Anything in particular for universities or for institutions in Canada?

When we started to receive requests for advice on Facebook we first researched it to confirm if it raised any real privacy protection issues, understand the issues raised by it in order to draw correct conclusions, and decide what course of action was needed.  We studied the service by reading all of Facebook’s policies, privacy statements, terms and conditions (tedious but necessary work to be fully informed and be able to offer reasoned arguments and justification for our opinion and advice).  As a result, we recognized that there were privacy protection issues with Facebook.  We then decided to be proactive rather than reactive in order to get out ahead of the issue and develop the key messages/guideline.  When it was generally understood that all Facebook data is stored on computer servers located outside Canada and that such storage is illegal without consent under the B.C. FIPPA, people generally accepted why the key messages document emphasizes that when University departments use Facebook it must be completely voluntary.

It was important to use an inclusive, consultative process when developing the key messages/guideline in order to foster a common understanding of the issues and buy-in by the key stakeholders primarily affected/involved in this process.

The specific policy position an organization takes depends on the jurisdiction in which it is located.  As we know, privacy law provisions can differ in substantive ways from one jurisdiction to the next.  This needs to be considered carefully.  Also, in that context, an organization should also establish at the outset that it has jurisdiction to deal with the matter that is at issue.

In LIBR 559M, we’ve been discussing the permeable nature of personal and professional presentation online. It makes me think back to ARST 555, and the presentation we did about John McDonald’s article Managing Records in the Modern Office: Taming the Wild Frontier. Way back in 1995, McDonald wrote this excellent analysis of how the change to personal computers threw many kinds of traditional record-keeping. From the abstract:

From a record-keeping perspective, the modern office is like the wild frontier. Office workers can create and send electronic messages and documents to whomever they wish. They can store them according to their own individual needs and then delete them without turning to anyone else for approval. There are no rules of the road. The autonomy of the individual reigns supreme!

That is, as office hierarchy was changed by technology, traditional record-keeping strategies fell apart. As the personal computer became the location where records were made and kept, workers started thinking about those items as, well, personal. In a more general way, this happens to many people as we use new technologies. This applies to social media as well: for example, many professionals use Twitter for both personal and work-related information. Or, as Sarah Palin dealt with last year, we may use our personal email accounts for official business.

Anyway, I have been thinking about this in connection with Google Wave. I haven’t gotten to test it out yet, but I’ve been seeing interesting comments by archivists and records managers. As more and more functions can be incorporated into a single tool, it can really muddy the records being created. This is all the more true when creation can be done as a group, or individually but anonymously. My understanding is that Wave will permit more integration of the elements (IM, email, etc.) contributing to any activity. As Alan Bell notes, “Google seems to have created the first collaborative environment where context, conversation and object are captured together and can be rendered together as the record of any collaboration.” Wowza! Despite the challenges for actually figuring out what the record is, let alone how to preserve it long-term, that’s an exciting possibility. However, if folks are using their Google Wave accounts for both business and pleasure, the work of records managers and archivists becomes much, much messier.

October is Archives Month. There’s no better month than October to work on your family tree, peruse the manuscripts of your favorite writer, or, you know, celebrate democracy by examining public records.

Appropriately enough, the new Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, was confirmed today. As you can see in the comments on this New York Times blog post, Ferriero’s background with NYPL has touched off another round of discussion about the professional identity of the archivist. That is, the archivist as distinct from the librarian (or, for that matter, the historian). While librarianship is regulated through ALA accreditation of MLS programs, there’s no equivalent for archival education. Programs like the MAS program at UBC are very rare in North America: more often, when there’s explicit archival education at all, it is embedded in a history or LIS degree. Although there are professional certifications (like through the Academy of Certified Archivists), plenty of archivists get hired without those certifications or even any explicit archival training. While the diversity of backgrounds can be really fertile the profession, it also seems to confuse the public. (Even the NYT initially reported that Ferriero would be the “top librarian” of the country.)

As a student of both archival and library studies, I often get asked “which way” I’m leaning. My Joint cohort often jokes that we’re like the kids in an unhappy marriage, everyone wants us to pick a side. I strongly believe that we can learn both how to deal with a record, how to deal with publications, and more generally, with information or data. In fact, understanding the similarities and differences can be very valuable.

Nonetheless, October is a month for loving the ‘chives. You can watch the CSPAN footage of Ferriero’s confirmation here. Bon archives, everyone!

I’m a bit late to note this, but as reported on Archives Next and through the SAA Archives and Archivists list, Wikipedia has made some changes to their policies. Basically, these changes make it easier for professionals from archives and special collections to add or edit pages using specialized knowledge from their collections, without being flagged as having a potential conflict of interest. See the change itself here.

This update from the Whitehouse blog is full of interesting statements, but this was my favorite part:

“Our policies lag behind new trends, causing unnecessary restrictions on the use of new technology. Past practices too often resulted in inefficient use of purchased IT capabilities across the federal government. We are dedicated to addressing these barriers and to improving the way government leverages new technology.”

From an archival point of view, I want to point out that sometimes those IT restrictions ARE necessary. Not to overgeneralize, but the forms and registers that governments use have been developed over the ages because they provide sufficient evidence of how those governments work. While there is obviously room for improvement, we need to be wary about how we adopt exciting new technologies, especially in terms of necessary recordkeeping. Nonetheless, this should be an interesting endeavor. I have a lot to learn about cloud computing, by the way.

On a related note, apparently, the WH is “archiving” user contributions to social media websites. It’s odd that this article has such a spin towards a potential violation of privacy. I got an email about this from the Society of American Archivists listserv. As the sender noted, “How can collecting information that was deliberately and voluntarily posted to a publicly accessible website violate anybody’s privacy?” I suspect the issue is that this information was posted on third-party sites, including Facebook and Youtube, rather than directly on the White House website. The allusion to the Presidential Records Act surprises me: my understanding was that the Act is limited to records created BY the presidency, not things ABOUT it.

Howdy, folks.

My name is Kelly, and I’m a third-year student in the joint Masters of Library and Information Studies and Masters of Archival Studies program at the School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies at the University of British Columbia. Or, the MLIS/MAS program at SLAIS at UBC, for short.

So, I’ve had blogs before, starting with a livejournal account with a dreadful color scheme, way back as a first-year undergrad. But it’s a new school year, and a perfect time for a new blog, this time special for my LIBR 559 course, which is focused on social media for information professionals.

I’ll leave you with a link to Catherine O’Sullivan’s 2005 Calvin Pease award-winning article, Diaries, On-line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers Who Blog Them. She has an intriguing argument about how blogs form personal “papers,” and the issues involved in longterm preservation of ’em. (From American Archivist, vol. 68, no. 1.)